No thought is “fool proof,” no matter how much time a person takes formulating it. The same went for Mill’s harm principle. The difference in the flaws with his argument and other people’s flaws, is that is was not his fault. God made each person different, both physically and mentally. We are all affected by things differently, based on our religion, ethnic background, parents, friends, and intelligence, just to name a few. There are an infinite amount of things that makes everyone different. For this reason, it is not Mill’s fault that social harm will never be able to have an all-inclusive definition. There will never be an agreement on social harm, because it

The strengths of Mill’s argument jump off the pages at whoever reads On Liberty.

or; however, it was not the first method of liberation, but the last. These are they only possible weaknesses in Mill’s harm principle, but they do very little to disprove his theory.

The obvious strength is that the harm principle promotes free thought. This enables our society to progress and evolve. As long as our society does not become stifled and we do not wallow in out greatness, we will never cease to move forward. Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement is just one example. This was a case where the minority was having their rights violated. Since the social harm was so significant, society exercised its power to outlaw these violations. Dr. King was a free thinker who elevated the thoughts of an ethnic group and eventually a country. Another example is the gay rights movement. Homosexuals were being harmed, and their rights infringed upon. Eventually, people realized that we needed to welcome them and lea

Some common words found in the essay are:
John Mill’s, Egypt Newton, Senator McCarthy, Dr King, Rights Movement, social harm, harm principle, mill’s harm principle, tyranny majority, mill’s harm, Red Scare, rights movement, mill’s argument, define boundary,
Approximate Word count = 691
Approximate Pages = 3 (250 words per page double spaced)